You said there was only ONE
MAC MINI with discrete graphics. I don't know WTF you're whining on about in the rest. It wasn't meant to be a discussion or a chance for you to rant. It was a correction. Get over it. WTF does Intel have do with that
specific comment? A Mac Mini is still a Mac Mini. You are the one that brought up Intel cycles, but you
implied that the Mac Mini was designed for integrated graphics when in fact the very first one used a separate chipset and Apple even BRAGGED about that fact. I said all that before, but you just ignore all the facts that make you look bad and rant on about the ones you think don't.
WTF does that have to do with your absolute statement that no Mac Mini except ONE ever had a discrete GPU? It implies that Apple only ever intended the Mini to be an integrated bottom barrel POS, when in fact, it was marketed as a small desktop that lets you keep your existing keyboard, mouse and monitor (i.e. designed to encourage PC users to convert).
Yes I stand corrected. There was also a
non-Intel Mac mini with discrete graphic before. The point was, that ever since Apple switched to x86 with Intel they positioned the Mac mini as a
cheap entry into the Mac ecosystem. I tend to see Power PC Macs and Intel Mac as to
separate entities and since they are in fact architecturally different in both soft- and hardware, I'm not so far off.
Well, then you've never read any of comments elsewhere on this board for the past 6 years.
If you want to get
confrontational over simple comments, I can reply in kind all day long. I tend to treat people the
same way I'm treated (within guidelines at least) and frankly you're acting pretty ridiculous at this point.
I'm sorry if I came off as overly offensive; it was not my intention. Maybe it's because English is not my native language, so again I apologize if it came over like that.
It sounds you don't know WTF you're talking about. My god you overreact. My ORIGINAL statement was simply I would have preferred to know about the Intel 5000 in November when I bought it. I didn't buy it to be a game machine and that's not it's primary function (which is to replace a PowerMac SERVER I use to send iTunes video and music and photos all around the house to AppleTVs). It also does much better than my Windows machine for converting video to .M4A for iTunes seeing it has a Quad i7 chipset. For everything but games, it's fine. HOW THE HELL you conclude from that information that I don't want or need an Apple product when my entire whole house audio/video system is Apple and my MBP music production studio is BEYOND ALL LOGIC. I never said I had to have a game machine. I simply said I'd have preferred the Intel 5000 since it's quite a big improvement over the 4000 and approaches a 650M, which really isn't too terrible for games made in the past two years.
Your original statement was this:
"Apple updates the Mini when they feel like updating it. It is NOT updated when Intel updates their chips. It's usually dead last (save the Mac Pro) to get an update and hence my other point, that even when a new chipset does come out, the Mini is halfway along to the next Intel chipset release date before you can typically get one."
I'm sorry but I simply disagree with the statement and I have provided relevant information to back this claim up. Ever since Apple switched to Intel they had an almost yearly update cadence with the then new Intel chips.
Also Haswell has been in the works for years and was planned to be released in 2013. I'm not quite sure how you can blame anybody but yourself for not being up to date on what's on the horizon. In fact Intel demonstrated a working Haswell chip at the
2011 Intel Developer Forum. The HD5000 was shown to run Skyrim at the Intel Developer Forum
2012. Also not all Haswell chips are released yet. Some are slated for a Q3 release. (Almost) every chip you can get right now have the HD4600 inside and I would place a bet that Apple actually
has to wait until the HD5000 or Iris 5100/5200 chips are released, because those are the ones that will probably find their way inside the new Mac mini, Mac Book Pro and perhaps even entry level iMac.
You must live in another Universe if you think it's "cheap" by today's computer standards (do you know what a PC goes for these days?). I paid $1100 for it with 8GB and two hard drives in the Quad i7 configuration. Yeah, I could have built a Hackintosh with potential upgrade issues for the next OS that would game well, but this is a 24/7/365 server that hides on the back of my desk. No Hackintosh will do that. Again, your "LOGIC" lacks 100%.
Ok let's run it down:
Apple Mac mini 2012 Basis Version
- 2.5 GHz dual-Core Intel Core i5
- 4 GB RAM
- 500 GB HDD
It costs 629
A self made comparable PC
- Case: Fractal Design NODE 304 80
- Mainboard: ASRock Z77E-ITX 120
- CPU: Intel Core i5-3210M 160 (that's the one used by Apple but as a mobile processor this will obviously not fit inside a Socket 1155 mainboard)
- HDD: Samsung HN-M500MBB 500 GB 45
- RAM: G.Skill DIMM 4 GB DDR3-1600 Kit 35
- PSU: be quiet! SFX Power 300W 50
- Antenna: probably 10
- Windows 7 Home Premium 160
All together:
660 give or take. I'm not even going to stark running down the cost for a iMac comparable setup.
Do you know anything about ventilation? Have you seen the new Mac Pro? Small doesn't have to mean not well ventilated. And no one is forcing Apple to make the Mini the exact size it is anyway. My point is your logic if flawed.
How is my logic flawed? People buy the Mac mini ergo they must be fine with it's size. Size, design and efficiency is one of the aspects Apple is focusing on and people choose Apple for it. What would be the sense in making a bigger case just to fit a discrete graphic card in their for some fringe use scenarios? That's the point you are not getting. You are making the assumption that everybody wants or need a discrete graphic chip in the Mac mini. Reality is, barely anybody does.
Also we have yet to see how well the new design of the Mac Pro will ventilate it. In fact who know's if they won't use the same design for the new Mac mini?
The 5000 is 50% faster. If a game is running at its low points at 20fps, that means it will run at 30fps. In short, it will make a lot more games be playable at higher resolutions. People have made bigger deals about a 10% increase in CPU power. 50% is a decent increase for a 6 month wait.
I consider 30 frames per second barely playable especially on first person shooters but your mileage may very. Besides if it barely touched 30 frames per second chances are it will dip well below that on different levels. Also we still don't know what processor Apple will use. They can use either HD4600 or Iris 5200 and the speed difference will be anything between 20% and 100%. So yes depending on which chip they choose it will be a nice incease, but
that was already clear over a year ago. Haswell was on the horizon, so you could have waited. I just simply don't get this point:
"Which is precisely why I lamented the Haswell chipset coming out a half of a year after buying a new Mini (but as I said, the new Mini probably won't come out until somewhere between late October and December)."
The Mac mini came out when the then new Ivy Bridge chips were available (and I have shown data to prove that). The new Mac mini will almost certainly come out in October as well. So exactly one year later. Intel hasn't begun shipping Iris 5200 equipped chips yet.
I simply don't get your problem: Apple is at the mercy of Intel in this regard. No chips = no new Mac mini, hence my entire point, that Apple updates their - and let me make this very clear before any further argument arises -
Intel equipped product line, when new chips are available. The only major difference to this was the 2012 iMac, but that was, in a likelihood, delayed because of the screen laminating issue.
I mean honestly, you are 1000% more confrontational than you need to be. I made a COMMENT in this thread and you're ATTACKING like the country's defense depends on it. You are simply OUT OF LINE.
Again I'm sorry if I came off confrontational I'm anything but an Apple apologist, believe me. Your initial problem was this:
"What sucks about having to wait to get the Mac Mini with USB3 is that only 6 months later, the GPU is completely out of date even with Intel, let alone stand-alones and there is no way to just replace the GPU in it. But just because a better integrated GPU is now becoming available, Apple might take another year to update the Mac Mini so I can't just replace it either. The GPU is the weakest part of the Mini, after all and so it's a bit of an irritating situation. Yes, other Macs face similar problems, but they often get updated more often (well, the MBP does, at least)."
I responded because there were several false statements in this:
- Apple updates in a timely manner and I have already showed enough evidence on that
- Intel hasn't even released the entire Haswell lineup, yet you claim your Mac mini is outdated
By the time the all Haswell chips are released Apple will update their Mac mini. It will not be outdated by any standard.
Who said ANYTHING about using for HTPC use???? I said SERVER, not HTPC. I already use AppleTVs in the various rooms of the house. The Mac Mini is an Internet terminal and iTunes server and converter, not a HTPC. I don't watch movies on it.
You said:
"[...]I needed a replacement server for my whole house audio/video system and that's the primary function of this Mac Mini[...]"
To me this implies, that you store all your media files on their and either stream of directly view off from your Mac mini. The definition to a HTPC by wikipedia is:
"A Home Theater PC (HTPC) or Media Center computer is a convergence device that combines some or all the capabilities of a personal computer with a software application that supports video, photo, audio playback, and sometimes video recording functionality."
Yet I'm still not sure just what a better graphic card might bring onto the table for that usage scenario? Maybe I should have started out with that question. All you ever said was:
"[...]That doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer a better GPU.[...]"
Sure I would like a better GPU as well, but given the price point, size and usage scenario I simply don't need nor request it. Neither do 99% of other Mac mini users. In fact the Quick Sync function from your so so called "[...]cheapest garbage available[...]" Intel processors are speeding up encoding processes much more then any other GPU using solution today. I'm not even sure if encoding software supports GPUs on Mac OS X yet.
For gaming purposes I consider any mobile chip barely usable. If you want to game you will need at a bare minimum a 650M for newer games. That will increase the BOM cost of the Mac Mini easily by 200-300 , yet who actually needs it? I'm sure Apple has done the math and know exactly what models are being sold. I think it is foolish from you to believe that demand for a bigger graphic card is huge and people will be selling their grandma to get such an Mac. But let's agree to disagree on that. I see your point and I personally would like an Mac with a bigger graphic card as well. On the other hand I completely understand that it will not be a huge market for Apple.
Even though I don't use it for that, my Mac Mini with its USB3 BD drive plays Blu-Ray movies (yes commercial ones) LIVE just fine using VLC with the appropriate plugins.
I said and bolded for emphasize:
"That being said the Mac mini is fine just for an HTPC use. If you want more I wouldn't go Apple anyway since it doesn't even support native Blu-Ray playback."
I consider external BD drive + VLC + Plugins pretty much not native.
I said several messages ago I use it as a SERVER for a whole house audio/video system. What flipping part of that have you missed? Did you even LOOK at my signature where it says I have THREE AppleTVs and two more Airport Express units? That's FIVE rooms of audio and/or video not counting the den itself.
And once again the communication breaks down and you imply something I NEVER said. This is my FIRST Mac Mini, dude. It replaces an upgraded PowerMac G4 Digital Audio. iTunes is no longer supported on that machine and so it was time to replace it. It worked perfectly fine as a server right up until I replaced at the end of November, start of December.
Yeah...no...I got that. You need a new Mac mini as your media file server (let's call it that way, before you complain about the word HTPC again), because new iTunes doesn't run on it. And you feel like Apple when you purchased it in October it was already outdated, because a)Ivy Bridge was supposedly out for months back then (a fact I have - backed up with evidence - disproven) and b)Haswell just launched (although the relevant chips for a Mac mini refresh haven't even been shown). Furthermore you would prefer a beefier graphic card inside and you would even be fine with a bigger case in turn. I have told you several times now that you are a minority here. Also you feel like Apple uses cheap component for the Mac mini and charges an arm and a leg for it (which I have also disproven with hard facts).
Question and I don't mean this in any condescending way: Why don't you build your own a nice small form factor PC and run iTunes for Windows on it?
More flawed logic. Just because something "sells" that doesn't mean something ELSE might not sell BETTER. My god, is that really SO HARD to comprehend??? Frankly, I've concluded you're in your teens to early 20s or you wouldn't be acting this way. Only the new iOS generation thinks like this.
You are right it doesn't. But given the fact that Apple does not provide any discrete graphic card
anymore implies to me that either a)people didn't want to pay extra for little performance increase or b)didn't care for graphic power on a Mac mini at all. Is it SO HARD to comprehend that people don't go into a Apple store and go: "Woo this huge, ugly Apple box a nVidia GTX Titan inside...I need to buy that."? They go into a store and see a neat small efficient computer that suits all their needs. Why change a running system? That's what
defines Apple.
That sounds pretty crappy. My home theater is a 93" HDTV projection system with 6.1 sound. My living room is a 47" HDTV Plasma with 6 foot tall Carver ribbon speakers with custom active crossovers. I don't need to buy a pre-calibrated anything and my audio systems cost me $7000 and $5000 respectively.
I'm sorry but you really lost me on that. I don't see how this is at all relevant to my post, which compared the price of an iMac to the price of a comparable self build PC. All in all an Apple iMac is really not more expensive then a custom PC. Please check or point out exactly what the relevance to my sentence was, otherwise I will have to assume, that you simply don't read/grasp my comments, which would - in the end - make this discussion a huge waste of time.
And MY point is that IF Apple would offer a gaming Mac, they MIGHT start buying them for gaming use, even if it were to boot into Windows (Apple used to make Macs that ran Windows better than competitors). Such people would make easy converts to Mac gaming over time with Steam offering the Mac versions for free with purchase in many cases, etc. The point is just because something is a certain way NOW, that doesn't mean it has to STAY that way (your view it seems). That kind of thinking leads to death of companies that think the status quo is "good enough".
First: Show me one time where Windows ran better on a Mac then on a
comparable Windows PC. When I think about all the headaches I had with the BIOS emulation of Bootcamp I can hardly believe that claim.
Second: I already told you several times why people don't bother for gaming on Mac, but I'll collect them in a nice list for you
- Harsh competition - there is Windows, XBox, Playstation and Nintendo as direct Soft-/Hardware competitors
- Install base is very small and probably the percentage of Mac owners who are actually interested to game is even smaller
- No gaming API like DirectX - many games have to be ported and that takes away money and time, which has to be put into consideration against the small possible market
Sure Apple could do something about their hardware and software, but that still leaves the question about the install base. There are roughly 60 Million Mac users. Let's say 10% want to game. That's only 6 Million customers. The XBox 360 sold 73 Million units, which actually equals 73 Million customers for games. Playstation 3 has 77 Million units sold. Publishers focus to develop on that front. Macs are just an afterthought and usually a crappy one at that (they have a large overhead compared to native programs and hence run slower...not to mention they appear much later). What would the incentive be to switch over to Mac? There is non from a developers standpoint. There is also non from a gamers standpoint. So why would Apple even bother? Just for the hopes of making a Mac hip enough for gamers? You do realize Apples shareshoulders would not be happy with such a wild guess.
Where the hell do you get "nobody" from??? I've seen a LOT of people over the years BEG for this system to appear and you hear the same old tired fanboy BS in reply. "No one wants one". Where is this "no one" data coming from? OTHER FANBOYS is the answer. People that think the world revolves around them conclude just because they don't want one, NO ONE wants one. The weird thing is, however, despite the mentality, they also seem to have a "follow the leader" mentality. You can't even give an opinion around here without a legion of fanboys jumping all over your comments with drivel like go somewhere else or you're a troll. It's ridiculous.
Yeah well people tend to scream loudest if something doesn't work their way as opposed to when it does work their way. Or have you ever heard anybody say: no Apple please don't release the xMac, it is not needed. Just because the xMac crowd is the
most vocal, doesn't mean it is the majority.
I think I have shown several times now that your use case for the Mac mini is a fringe case. Don't let it sound like this is the normal use case for it.
I already dealt with this BS. You IGNORED it as usual and seem to think repeating the same nonsense over and over will somehow make it true.
Yeah but you don't seem to get it so let's agree to disagree.
OpenGL 4.x covers the same features nicely and is simple to convert over with things like Cider if only Apple would support 4.x
I'm no software engineer and I doubt you are one either. Simple to convert is a gross overstatement. Cider ports are not all that good, at least when you look at all the forum posts.